(October 18, 2021 at 3:55 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(October 6, 2021 at 9:02 am)Angrboda Wrote: Time is already defined in Hawking-Hartle. If you add another definition then you are guilty of equivocation and your argument is invalid. Don't be stupid.
I am sorry if adding another definition is too much for your brain to handle. If this helps, you can substitute for the word time anything you like to be able to speak coherently about things happening prior to the universe, just don't keep invalidating arguments for no reason.
I didn't invalidate your argument for no reason but because it contained an example of the fallacy of equivocation which makes your argument invalid. This has to be one of the stupidest objections I've ever heard. You can substitute any word you like so long as you are clear that it doesn't at some point refer to what is termed time in the Hawking-Hartle framework. If you are talking about things preceding each other temporally then you are talking about time and the charge of equivocation holds. If you want to talk about something else, like fluxnaub, which bears no relation to time and temporal concepts in this universe, then knock yourself out. Since it, fluxnaub, has nothing to do with time, temporality, "prior", or any related temporal concepts then it's pointless as an object tion to Hawking-Hartle. Seriously, are you really this stupid?
(October 18, 2021 at 3:55 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: The word "prior" here is, as explained before, in a causal sense. If causality holds outside of spacetime, then something (X) caused the spacetime. A new definition of a "time" or, even better, a sequence of events, is simply the sequences of all causes and effects that ever happened, and we assign to each element of this causal chain a rank i. If A causes B, and B causes C, then A would "happen" at rank i=0, B at rank i=1, etc. This is really simple and there is nothing incoherent about it.
This is just a bare assertion and can be dismissed if you can't support it. Do you have an argument or evidence that something caused spacetime?
(October 18, 2021 at 3:55 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Again, you can replace time/rank/sequence with anything you like, arguing about semantics won't help you here.
I'm not the one arguing semantics, but seeing as you've doubled down on causal order not requiring temporal order, that allows the introduction of an argument that further undercuts any argument for God such as Kalam. If a cause does not need to temporally precede its effect, then it's possible that something created within this universe caused our universe to exist, forming a sort of temporal loop. I don't have a problem with that if you don't. You've provided yet another way the universe can exist without a creator.